11 ms·

I disagree here strongly. It is not the best option. Statistics has become the tool of obfuscation and making exaggerated claims. Compare the two statements: "

I disagree here strongly. It is not the best option. Statistics has become the tool of obfuscation and making exaggerated claims. Compare the two statements: "10 out of 80 people that took the drug lived a month longer but were extremely miserable." Versus: "A new cancer drug doubles the average survival rates scientists say". Which one do you understand better? Here I just made up some examples, but as a scientist I'll tell you just about all the papers I read are in the second category, it takes an unreasonable amount of effort to get the first type of infomration out of the publications.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
I don't understand the chain of reasoning in your claim regarding the 1st and 2nd statements, and statistics in general. When I use the word statistics in this conversation, I mean the use of math to analyze and compare data. This can be done inappropriately, of course, but the problem doesn't lie with the principles of math (including statistics), but the agent using them inappropriately. And medical (or biology related) statistics are used most inappropriately, due to various cognitive biases and financial incentives. But the problem is not statistics, and it's still the best tool we have unless we can find a Magic School Bus to shrink us down and go observe the chemical reactions in real time. But I know that stats are abused, so anytime I see a fantastical claim, especially in medicine, I approach it much skepticism.
- glofish 7y ago
  There are fields of science that have banned certain statistical measures: Psychology journal bans P values https://www.nature.com/news/psychology-journal-bans-p-values-1.17001 https://www.nature.com/news/psychology-journal-bans-p-values... I happen to agree with the sentiment expressed above that the entire concept of hypothesis testing is fundamentally flawed. This is what you call the "best tool". It is not, it is the tool that is used because it allows for the most fudging of results.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

I don't understand the chain of reasoning in your claim regarding the 1st and 2nd statements, and statistics in general. When I use the word statistics in this conversation, I mean the use of math to analyze and compare data. This can be done inappropriately, of course, but the problem doesn't lie with the principles of math (including statistics), but the agent using them inappropriately. And medical (or biology related) statistics are used most inappropriately, due to various cognitive biases and financial incentives. But the problem is not statistics, and it's still the best tool we have unless we can find a Magic School Bus to shrink us down and go observe the chemical reactions in real time. But I know that stats are abused, so anytime I see a fantastical claim, especially in medicine, I approach it much skepticism.

glofish 7y ago
There are fields of science that have banned certain statistical measures: Psychology journal bans P values https://www.nature.com/news/psychology-journal-bans-p-values-1.17001 https://www.nature.com/news/psychology-journal-bans-p-values... I happen to agree with the sentiment expressed above that the entire concept of hypothesis testing is fundamentally flawed. This is what you call the "best tool". It is not, it is the tool that is used because it allows for the most fudging of results.